The High Court of Karnataka, through learned judge, Justice M. Nagaprasanna in the case of Vikram Vincent vs the State of Karnataka, while hearing joint petitions C.P. NO. 1675 of 2021 and W.P. NO. 2678 of 2022, ordered re-investigation of the case to invoke Section 377 against a husband who had forced his wife for unnatural sex.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: This petition was filed by the husband, Vikram Vincent, to quash the charge sheet filed against him by his wife, Richa Mishra. The wife, Richa Mishra, filed another petition praying to issue a writ of Mandamus for continuing further investigation against her husband regarding the case filed. Since both the petitions arose out of the same issue, the petitions were heard together before the High Court of Karnataka. Richa Mishra alleged that her husband forced her to have unnatural sex. He used to abuse, assault and torture her. When things got unbearable, and she left him, he threatened her that he would leak her obscene pictures. He sent a few of her obscene pictures to her friends and father. It was following these incidents that the wife filed a petition against her husband under Sections 498A, 377, 34 of IPC & Section 66E and 67 of I.T. Act. Upon investigation, all other charges other than Section 498 A were dropped against the husband in the charge sheet. The counsel for the wife alleged that the charge sheet was deliberately diluted since it dropped the other charges against the husband.
JUDGEMENT: The court relied on the principles laid down by the apex court in the decisions of Dayal Singh vs State of Uttaranchal and Pooja Pal v. Union of India and observed that the genesis of the case needs to be revisited by re-investigation. The court condemned the gross negligence of the police in the investigation of the crime. The graphic details in the complaint and the contents of the statements given to the police were not taken into consideration. Charges against the husband under Section 377 of IPC & Sections 66A and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 were dropped by the police without proper reasoning. In light of these observations, the court ordered the police to re-investigate the case and file the supplementary charge sheet before the trial court within two months. Since there were no records that established the innocence of the husband, the court refused to quash the charge sheet filed against him.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K